Why don’t Republican women have a problem with Rick Santorum?

posted at 3:05 pm on March 20, 2012 by Tina Korbe

The Fix’s Chris Cillizza marvels at Rick Santorum’s increasing polling strength among Republican women, as measured by a new Washington Post/ABC News poll:

Judging from the coverage of Rick Santorum’s presidential campaign over the last few weeks, you might think that the former Pennsylvania Senator’s numbers would be cratering among women.

But you would be wrong. Way wrong.

In a new Washington Post-ABC poll, Santorum’s numbers among Republican and Republican-leaning women have soared over the past month. He now has the highest favorability rating among that group of any of the top-tier Republican presidential candidates. …

The poll numbers reinforce findings from recent exit polls that suggest Santorum is holding steady — if not strengthening — among Republican women. In Alabama, Santorum beat former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney by eight points among women; in Mississippi, Santorum took 35 percent among women to 32 percent for Romney.

Cillizza cites three theories for why Santorum has proved so popular with the fairer sex. One theory suggests his increased favorability rating among females is just the result of growing recognition of Santorum’s name, in general. Another suggests women find him a sympathetic figure because he has endured a relentless onslaught of attacks for his social views from the media. A third suggests that he’s successfully framed the key “women’s issue” of this election — the contraception mandate — as more about government encroachment on personal beliefs than about contraception itself.

None of these theories goes far enough. Increased name recognition, for example, doesn’t explain why women like Santorum more than men do. The media theory discounts the truth that all the GOP candidates have been relentlessly vetted by the MSM. The third theory ignores that Santorum hasn’t always done a good job framing the contraception issue in terms of freedom.

So what is it? As a Republican woman who has liked Rick Santorum ever since I first read of his pro-life work as a senator (in an e-mail from a pro-life list-serv to which I was subscribed), I can at least speak for myself. I appreciate that Rick Santorum speaks up for the many women in this country who do have radically different views from the mainstream about what women are uniquely able to offer to society. For too long, feminists have pretended to speak for all of us — as though we are all eager to neuter ourselves, to obliterate gender difference, to deny our own fertility. When Santorum speaks about social issues, I hear in his voice a kind of awe at the mystery of womanhood that is sadly lacking among liberals. His awareness that only women can be mothers — and that mothering, whether physical or spiritual, is something every society needs — permeates his views about, for example, contraception and stay-at-home motherhood as one of the most important careers a woman can choose. Plenty of women never articulate their views about what it means to be a woman, but most of us sense innately that we are different from men and that, in that difference, there is also a complementarity. When we pretend to be like men to prove our equality, that complementarity is lost. When we embrace what makes us women — namely, our unique ability to give birth to the next generation (again, both physically and spiritually) — that complementarity is restored. Santorum encourages us to do just that — to embrace our womanhood.

It’s crazy, isn’t it? That a man has, in a way, become the first in a long time to speak up for the right of women to be women. While the rest of society tells us our fertility is a disease, Santorum tells us (and shows us by his own family) it’s our glory and our strength, our greatest source of influence. What woman wouldn’t like to hear that? We’re not just our fertility, of course, and not all women are able to physically have children, but I fail to see how the denial of a woman’s potential for physical and spiritual motherhood is at all empowering or uplifting.

Again, I speak only for myself here, but I’d be very surprised if many women, even if only subconsciously, aren’t drawn to Santorum as a candidate for the same reasons I am.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Conservative women have always been part of of anti-feminist, anti-civil rights and anti-gay politics, so why should it be a surprise when that legacy continues? Anita Bryant was never the only one, Margaret Thatcher was never the only one, Ann Coulter has never been the only one and not to mention Sarah Palin. In some ways women can be the *most* virulently anti-progressive because some women imagine societal change as threatening their children. Mrs. Lovejoy is instructive here. This is like asking “why do some working class whites support Republicans” well because some working class whites believe in that boot straps mythology and reject the notion that privilege operates in our society. Duh.

Again, I speak only for myself here, but I’d be very surprised if many women, even if only subconsciously, aren’t drawn to Santorum as a candidate for the same reasons I am.

Couldn’t have said it better myself Tina. I do like Santorum and part of me would love to see enough women vote for him to show the radical feminists that they don’t speak for us. I’m just not convinced that this is really a winning issue this time around–and beating Obama trumps everything.

We’re not just our fertility, of course, and not all women are able to physically have children, but I fail to see how the denial of a woman’s potential for physical and spiritual motherhood is at all empowering or uplifting.

good job tina, keep making that point. You state what you fail to see and restate the obvious about how some parents cannot have children. Go a step further and state the truth–that women were made to have children. Some will and that fact is one of the greatest blessings that they can enjoy with their husband. Some won’t or can’t and that is what it is. Some of them who not only would never have children, but also choose to denigrate and castigate those who do and should be ashamed of themselves.

I have wondered what the real poll numbers on women are…not this candidate but overall…In 08 Obama had a 5-7% advantage (but lost the mens vote) What is it now. I suspect the ‘war on women’ meme has not the resonance outside of the population that was already voting Obama that the left thinks.

I am not an expert or walking encyclopedia on all that is Rick Santorum, but if some quotes I’ve seen from him are accurate and not ripped out of appropriate context, I can’t agree with all of his view points (that sex in marriage is for pro-creation only, for example – some married people are physically unable to pro-create, and that is not their fault).

However, I am a woman and a social conservative, and I have agreed with some of the other positions he’s taken. I think the shock for some if that most people assume that all American women are liberal/ progressive/ Democrat. We’re not.

I actually do not like the attacks on Santorum for his views on sex (the ones I share, that is), abortion, etc.

A third suggests that he’s successfully framed the key “women’s issue” of this election — the contraception mandate — as more about government encroachment on personal beliefs than about contraception itself.

He smartly rejects the narrative of the left. When you see these arguments and flareups coming, pause for a moment and go to the root of the issue, rather than swallowing the bait and getting misdirected. Rick is smart on this one and I like that.

When we embrace what makes us women — namely, our unique ability to give birth to the next generation (again, both physically and spiritually) — that complementarity is restored.
…
We’re not just our fertility, of course, and not all women are able to physically have children, but I fail to see how the denial of a woman’s potential for physical and spiritual motherhood is at all empowering or uplifting.

Birth control isn’t a denial of fertility. Rather it enables women to postpone pregnancy in order to attend to the educational and financial preparedness that is necessary to birth (again, both physically and spiritually) the next generation.

What is really going on is women’s greater empathy and maternal instincts kicking in. Romney, Gingrich, and Paul are men who can take care of themselves. Santorum is a whiny little sissy who skins his knee on the playground and runs to Mommy to kiss it and make it better.

Women just naturally want to comfort the sobbing sissy in the sweater vest.

Go a step further and state the truth–that women were made to have children. Some will and that fact is one of the greatest blessings that they can enjoy with their husband. Some won’t or can’t and that is what it is. Some of them who not only would never have children, but also choose to denigrate and castigate those who do and should be ashamed of themselves.

ted c on March 20, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Women being capable of having kids (biologically speaking) does not necessarily equate to “they were made to have them.” – or the implication that is their only value or purpose in life, but perhaps you did not mean your comment in that way.

The Bible says God made woman as a companion/helper for Adam (‘God said, “It is not good for man to be alone”‘), not to be nothing but a baby factory alone.

In some ways women can be the *most* virulently anti-progressive because some women imagine societal change as threatening their children.

Or, possibly, it could be because of an honest disagreement with the philosophy and its implications. Shouldn’t it trouble self-labeled “feminists,” that roughly half of women disagree with their view of what a “true” voice should be?

My Tea Party group has eyes/ears among our “opposition”, including the local Occupy group. It has come to our attention, that these groups are thinking to disrupt our event is some way — using the “War on Women” as their righteous shield. Since when does the desire to NOT PAY for another’s OPTIONAL medical items constitute “War”.

What should be most concerning to the Team Obama minions and trolls who read Hot Air — I am a Democratic woman, and I will be carpooling with other such women to the March 23rd rally. I don’t think this “War on Women” is going quite the way Obama’s brain trust has planned.

Republican women aren’t stupid, and thus don’t believe that electing Santorum will result in a ban on contraceptives? Republican women don’t think access to contraceptives equals free contraceptives? I think at this point I’m leaning more towards Romney than Santorum, but I don’t have a problem voting for Santorum if he gets the nomination. I agree with most of what he says. And I do like his conviction, which is rare among politicians.

VAN SUSTEREN: In terms of your views on contraception and your religious beliefs — and everyone comes to the office of the president with certain religious beliefs — is it something that would in any way — you know, be — would it — I mean, is there any way it would be imposed on the American people? Or is it something that’s — you know, how would we see it in policy, if at all?

SANTORUM: Well, good. I — you know, just look at my record. I mean, I have been criticized by — by — I think it was Governor Romney or maybe it was Congressman Paul’s campaign for voting for contraception, that I voted for funding for it, which is — I think it’s — I think it’s Title 10, which is — which I have voted for in the past, that provides for free contraception through organizations, even like Planned Parenthood.

And so, you know, it’s funny that on the conservative side, I’m getting ripped for having voted for this.

This is like asking “why do some working class whites support Republicans” well because some working class whites believe in that boot straps mythology and reject the notion that privilege operates in our society. Duh.

libfreeordie on March 20, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Professor Bell? Is that you? You been funnin’ us all along with that whole death thing, ain’tcha been?

The Bible says God made woman as a companion/helper for Adam (‘God said, “It is not good for man to be alone”‘), not to be nothing but a baby factory alone.

TigerPaw on March 20, 2012 at 3:20 PM

you’re right, that’s a better, more accurate description and not what I meant regarding just being made to have them. They are uniquely designed to have children, but also much more than that, of course. thx.

Because most Republican women have not looked very closely at the things Santorum has *actually* said over the years. Most people who are for Santorum only look at the recent campaign material and aren’t looking at the full picture.

If taken in total context, Santorum is one scary dude to have in the White House.

Ha! Seriosuly though, I find it amusing that the only people who poo-poo the notion of a woman’s role in the home are the ones who think they’re doing the heavy lifting in society by burning their bras and begging congress for their birth control. You know – the ones who couldn’t fulfill the “woman’s role” on their best day…let alone every day.

I think that’s a great point. The shock over the female support for Santorum is based on the assumption that women will run from him because of the faulty premises (and straw men arguments) you identify.

Frankly, the fact that these straw men are being offered to try to win women voters should be extremely insulting, I would think.

I don’t understand the fear that just because Santorum chooses a certain lifestyle for his family–a traditional Catholic one–that that means he’s ready to shove the same thing down your throat. If he were Obama, he would dictate your lifestyle, but he’s not. Conservatives value their own freedom to live the way they want, but they also value your freedom to (within the law) be a dirt bag. That’s America.

I’m a pro-choice Republican woman. There are very few social issues I agree with Sen. Santorum on. However, he is a conviction politician who really believes the positions he espouses. I respect that. He’s solid on foreign policy & national defense, and conservative enough on fiscal policy to satisfy my requirements. The positions he’s taken and votes cast that were less conservative largely had to do with loyalty to other GOP team members like former President Bush. I can live with that. Loyalty counts. We need the whole team in place to rip out Obamacare.

I’ll be voting Anybody But Obama this year. I can support Mitt Romney, but I have far more regard for Sen. Santorum.

I don’t think it is particularly relevant that some percentage of Republican women like Santorum. Some like Tina do share his agenda. The relevant question is how many Republican women does Santorum alienate? Given the historical voting patterns of wealthy suburbs, Santorum will alienate many women who the GOP needs to win an election. For instance, Pat Toomey, a Republican senator won wealthy Bucks County 53% to 47% in 2010. In 2006, Santorum lost Bucks County 42% to 58%. Several swing states swing based on counties like Buck County.

I don’t understand the fear that just because Santorum chooses a certain lifestyle for his family–a traditional Catholic one–that that means he’s ready to shove the same thing down your throat.

RBMN on March 20, 2012 at 3:34 PM

To understand the fear you could listen to Santorum. He clearly wants gays to be second class citizens. While I think porn is not how people should be spending their time, Santorum has come right and said he wants to shove the anti-porn position down people’s throats.

I think it’s pretty obvious that conservative women are living the lives of ‘real women’ (not militant feminist types), and can relate to and appreciate Rick for understanding how honorable women and their roles really are.

Tina, there are other women in the country, not just conservative or evangelical women who vote in the GOP primaries. Trying to generate a false premise from a segmented and selected sample is hardly proper.

His awareness that women only can be mothers — and that mothering, whether physical or spiritual, is something every society needs — permeates his views about, for example, contraception and stay-at-home motherhood as one of the most important careers a woman can choose.

An excellent post, Tina, about why Santorum attracts the votes of women who value their motherhood, either present or future.

But the above sentence may be misconstrued by some people due to an unfortunate word order. You should probably replace

“His awareness that women only can be mothers”

with

“His awareness that only women can be mothers”

The way it was written implies that Santorum believes that women should be mothers and nothing else (which some women would consider demeaning) whereas the second version praises Santorum for recognizing that some women consider motherhood a beautiful gift.

I’m a pro-choice Republican woman. There are very few social issues I agree with Sen. Santorum on. However, he is a conviction politician who really believes the positions he espouses. I respect that. He’s solid on foreign policy & national defense, and conservative enough on fiscal policy to satisfy my requirements. The positions he’s taken and votes cast that were less conservative largely had to do with loyalty to other GOP team members like former President Bush. I can live with that. Loyalty counts. We need the whole team in place to rip out Obamacare.

I’ll be voting Anybody But Obama this year. I can support Mitt Romney, but I have far more regard for Sen. Santorum.

Jill1066 on March 20, 2012 at 3:39 PM

His loyalty should be to the American citizen and to the Constitution, not political party cronies.

It’s simple, really. Women care about families, and Santorum is pro-family. It only seems shocking to the media because they define “women” as a special interest group, and let feminists define what are “women’s issues.”

Because most Republican women have not looked very closely at the things Santorum has *actually* said over the years. Most people who are for Santorum only look at the recent campaign material and aren’t looking at the full picture.

If taken in total context, Santorum is one scary dude to have in the White House.

Tina, there are other women in the country, not just conservative or evangelical women who vote in the GOP primaries. Trying to generate a false premise from a segmented and selected sample is hardly proper.

galtani on March 20, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Umm, did you miss the part about “Why don’t Republican women have a problem with Rick Santorum?”

Given the historical voting patterns of wealthy suburbs, Santorum will alienate many women who the GOP needs to win an election. For instance, Pat Toomey, a Republican senator won wealthy Bucks County 53% to 47% in 2010. In 2006, Santorum lost Bucks County 42% to 58%. Several swing states swing based on counties like Buck County.

thuja on March 20, 2012 at 3:39 PM

A comparison of the 2006 and 2010 Senatorial elections in Pennsylvania might not be fair to Santorum.

Santorum was running in 2006 in a very bad year for Republicans (they lost 6 Senate seats and 30 House seats) against Bob Casey, Jr., son of the very popular former Governor Bob Casey, who also claimed to be pro-life and took “family/social” issues out of the campaign.

Toomey was running in 2010 in a good year for Republicans (they gained 7 Senate seats and 63 House seats) against two-term Rep. Joe Sestak, who was facing ethics charges that President Obama had offered him a job to keep him from challenging Arlen Specter in the Democrat primary. Sestak was a weaker opponent than Casey was for Santorum, and Toomey only won by about 2%.

I am not an expert or walking encyclopedia on all that is Rick Santorum, but if some quotes I’ve seen from him are accurate and not ripped out of appropriate context, I can’t agree with all of his view points (that sex in marriage is for pro-creation only, for example – some married people are physically unable to pro-create, and that is not their fault).

However, I am a woman and a social conservative, and I have agreed with some of the other positions he’s taken. I think the shock for some if that most people assume that all American women are liberal/ progressive/ Democrat. We’re not.

I actually do not like the attacks on Santorum for his views on sex (the ones I share, that is), abortion, etc.

TigerPaw on March 20, 2012 at 3:17 PM

I don’t agree with the Catholic doctrine about birth control and limiting sex to procreation. In fact, I consider it overall harmful to good marriages to make them all about reproduction.

But I do recognize that these are traditional Catholic viewpoints. The Catholic Church can’t impose these viewpoints on their own parishioners. They sure aren’t going to impose them on the rest of us.

I don’t understand the fear that just because Santorum chooses a certain lifestyle for his family–a traditional Catholic one–that that means he’s ready to shove the same thing down your throat.

RBMN on March 20, 2012 at 3:34 PM

To understand the fear you could listen to Santorum. He clearly wants gays to be second class citizens. While I think porn is not how people should be spending their time, Santorum has come right and said he wants to shove the anti-porn position down people’s throats.

thuja on March 20, 2012 at 3:45 PM

You and those like you want the Republican party to be all about your own special interests.

It’s the Democratic party that ignores what the majority wants and panders to every special interest group that comes along. If the Republican party tries to outpander the Democrats, they’ll be sitting in shock in November wondering how Barack Obama won a second term with his horrible record.

To understand the fear you could listen to Santorum. He clearly wants gays to be second class citizens. While I think porn is not how people should be spending their time, Santorum has come right and said he wants to shove the anti-porn position down people’s throats enforce anti-obscenity laws which Romney and Gingrich also agree with.

Umm, did you miss the part about “Why don’t Republican women have a problem with Rick Santorum?”

tom on March 20, 2012 at 3:59 PM

You may recognize that not all republican women are conservative or evangelical, and I had not quite counted the independent and moderate democrat women.

galtani on March 20, 2012 at 4:06 PM

If you haven’t noticed that the Republican party is traditionally the home of conservatives, then you haven’t been paying attention. It doesn’t have to be all Republican women. A big enough majority will explain the poll results just fine.

There is good bit of validity to your points about the difference between the two elections. I need to come up with some way of making clearer what I think is happening in Bucks County. I believe that Bucks County and the other Philly suburbs do have significant populations of Republicans who find Santorum’s views on social issues freakish. I haven’t seen any polling by county, but I predict that Romney carries them. I would also predict that Romney carries Allegheny county, but that is where Santorum is from. Perhaps, a contested Romney/Santorum primary in PA will make this point cleanly.

I actually do not like the attacks on Santorum for his views on sex (the ones I share, that is), abortion, etc.

TigerPaw on March 20, 2012 at 3:17 PM

TigerPaw, honest question here, not trying to be snarky or demeaning…

You say you are ok with his views on sex, the ones that you share. What about the ones that you don’t share? Would you be ok with losing those aspects of sex on which you don’t agree with Santorum in order to get rid of those aspects on which you do agree with him?

I’m asking because therein lies the crux of my main problem with Santorum (which actually breaks down into two problems). First, he has stated repeatedly his disagreement with libertarianism in general, wherein he appears to believe that government should regulate certain aspects of our personal lives to be in accordance with what he believes is a proper society and proper family values. When you combine that with his exceedingly conservative and highly religious social positions, it leads to a belief among many voters (myself included) that he believes it is government’s role to regulate people’s lives to conform to his view of a proper society.

The second problem then stems from the first problem. If government under Rick Santorum argues for those sorts of regulations, what happens when government is led by those who do not agree with the positions of those who supported Santorum in those regulations? If a President Santorum advocates for and gets certain regulations that intrude into people’s personal lives, then has precedent has been set for the reach of government into those areas. Now a highly liberal Dem president comes along after Santorum and uses that precedent to invade our personal lives in ways that someone highly socially conservative does not agree. Will those same people who support Santorum’s encroachments on personal liberty when it was an issue with which they agreed now decry those same intrusions when the issue is not one they agree with? That is my issue in the long term. I believe it is better to keep government out of certain areas, even if I agree with a politician’s position on the issue, if only to ensure that a politicians with whom I disagree does not now have an argument to set policy with which I disagree. As long as the government stays out of those issues, then each of us can live under the personal rules we each see fit for our own lives. Once one side takes that away, then either side can take that away in ways with which we may vehemently disagree.

If you haven’t noticed that the Republican party is traditionally the home of conservatives, then you haven’t been paying attention. It doesn’t have to be all Republican women. A big enough majority will explain the poll results just fine.

tom on March 20, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Not all conservatives are soc cons, religious cons or self appointed cons at exclusion of everyone else who do not meet their purity test.

I loathe left wing feminism, but I’m also not keen on right wing feminism. It’s all blah blah blah to me. I sure as heck don’t need Rick Santorum to “encourage me to embrace my womanhood” nor do I need him to break the news that women are different from men. Like Duh.

Thin gruel Tina. The exit polls follow the course of the primaries. It isn’t that people are liking Santorum better, it’s that we just had a bunch of primaries dominated by evangelical-heavy populations. I bet when we go to Utah, ole St Rick will be less favored. Oh wow, those crazy bigots. Please. Tina, go ahead and testify all you want about what it means to you to be a Republican womnen but don’t misinterpret an upward slope as anything more than a skewed sample for that time period.

Besides, wasn’t it the women who loved Obama more too? And didn’t we end up with prohibition after women voted? And weren’t we supposed to put a woman in charge so we wouldn’t have any wars any more? What’s up with that Hillary?

Again, I speak only for myself here, but I’d be very surprised if many women, even if only subconsciously, aren’t drawn to Santorum as a candidate for the same reasons I am.

This is reminiscent of those fawning, cringe-worthy Obama articles and interviews from 2008: ‘Tell me, Senator Obama, how does it feel to be so dreamy, so irresistibly handsome, charming, and brilliant?’ Excuse me while I swoon. I’m feeling as nauseated as Santorum listening to JFK’s church-and-state separation speech.

Oh, hey, by the way: the country’s just a few years away from a complete economic meltdown. What to do, what to do…Wait, I know! Let’s talk about the twin evils of contraception and pornography.

You’re less for ‘limited government’, than you are for ‘limited responsibility’.listens2glenn on March 20, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Please. You think the Declaration of Independence rejects natural rights. Try to understand natural rights before you can discuss limited government.Dante on March 20, 2012 at 3:59 PM

.
Apologies, but it took some thinking the last time we had this debate, and I actually, finally ‘conjured’ a response, but the thread had progressed off the homepage by then.
.
My contention was (and is) that the Founding Fathers recognized ALL rights as having come from God. And further, that they used the Holy Bible to specifically define the afore mentioned rights, as to what they are, and are NOT.

And that’s the way America had been from it’s founding until the Counter-Culture Revolution (1960s & 70s).
What us “Evil Big-Government Evangelicals” are trying to do is over-throw/over-turn all of it.

*Important addendum* – I (and I believe most of us) do not account the Civil Rights Movement as being part of the Counter-Culture Revolution. The Civil Rights Movement began with Bible-believing clergymen in predominantly black southern churches.
It was later (’67-’68?)’hijacked’ by atheist Counter-Culture Revolutionaries.
And that’s what brought us to where we are.

What you said about Santorum is probably true, but Romney doesn’t view women much different than Santorum. Romney avoids the social issues and continues to focus on what needs to be done to fix our ailing economy. Maybe that’s why Romney keeps winning in the delegate race.

It was that shirtless picture of Santorum lounging in a lawn chair that was on Drudge for over 3 days straight.

It worked for Obama, right?

portlandon on March 20, 2012 at 3:12 PM

If you HAVE to bring that up, you better serve it up with a big bottle of mental clorox. *shudder*

This Republican woman finds Santorum to be a hideously judgemental fusspot. I don’t believe for a minute that the ABC poll is accurate.
Although I guess they could be doing their polling outside of an evangelical rally.